[Arkinsaw]

While on the face of it, you can’t do that, it will basically reset the whole case from the start.

We should take what we get for now. It is much better for anti-gun forces to be spending time and resources in court trying to pick away at this ruling rather than our side trying to pick away at their win.

This really does cause the anti-gun folks some problems. Big ones. The cats are out of the bag and they will have to start working to get them back in. A huge change of pace from the previous work of "consolidating their position".

Since it has been positively affirmed as an individual right, it opens the door for having to defend against "onerous" restrictions of an ESTABLISHED right. That's a big change and likely to be time-consuming an expensive.

It shakes up the "settling" of the law and guarantees years of court cases to feel this ruling out.

State legislatures, localities, and various Attorneys General will no longer be so clear in what they can do and may behave more conservatively. They will probably be less likely to follow in lockstep with the "advice" of anti-gun activists.

Whether its as broad a ruling as was wanted or desired is for tomorrow. Tonight, be happy that your individual right to keep and bear arms has been affirmed by the highest court in the land and that for the first time in US history the anti-gun forces have an actual precedent to overcome.

[redgolum]

Whether its as broad a ruling as was wanted or desired is for tomorrow. Tonight, be happy that your individual right to keep and bear arms has been affirmed by the highest court in the land and that for the first time in US history the anti-gun forces have an actual precedent to overcome.

You are right. I honestly had plans to spend a lot of money today if things went wrong. But I am trying to voice a little caution.

This was ONE case. There are thousands of laws that are de facto bans that will still stand after this case.